HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-04 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, August 4, 2003 at 3:45 p.m.
in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
VAR 03-22.00: Variance (Marcella Thompson, pp 437)
Page 2
VAR 03-23.00: Variance (Merlins, pp 521)
Page 4
VAR 03-24.00: Variance (Callaway, pp 446)
Page 9
VAR 03-25.00: Variance (Massey, pp 363)
Page 13
VAR 03-26.00: Variance (Pierce, pp 405)
Page 15
MEMBERS PRESENT
James Kunzelmann
Michael Green
Joanne Olszewski
Bob Kohler
Bob Nickle
Approved
Approved
Approved
Tabled
Approved
MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Andrews
Sheree Alt
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Dawn Warrick
Renee Thomas
David Whitaker
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 2
VAR 03-22.00: Variance (Marcella Thompson, pp 437) was submitted b' Jorgensen &
Associates on behalf of Marcella Thompson for property located at 650 N. 54` Avenue. The
property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 20.7 acres. The
requirement is for 200' of lot width for R -A property. The request is for 177.85' lot width (a
22.15' variance).
Green:
Welcome to the August Board of Adjustment meeting. The first item on our agenda
is approval of the minutes of the July meeting. Does anyone have any corrections
or additions to those minutes? Hearing no corrections or additions we will consider
those minutes approved. Under new business, the first item on our agenda is a
Variance submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Marcella Thompson.
This property is zoned R -A and the request is for a minimum lot variance. Dawn,
can you give us the report?
Warrick: Yes Sir. I am going to start by handing out some larger plats that will give you a
better indication of what piece of property we are dealing with and what the
conditions are. Those were provided by the applicant's representative. This subject
property is located between Persimmon Street and Wedington Drive on the east side
of 54th Street. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and is currently
used for agricultural purposes as well as residential. Surrounding properties are
primarily residential with a mix of single-family homes on large lots. Agricultural
property and some duplexes. The applicant would like to build a second single-
family home on the subject property without having to rezone the entire tract to an
RSF-4, Residential Single-family zoning district. In order to do this the request is
for a variance of the required 200' lot width for the new single-family home. The
property currently contains a total of 377.85' of lot width and in order to build the
second single-family home on the property 400' total would be necessary. There is
an ordinance that provides for the construction of a second principle structure
without having to actually divide the tract. However, that ordinance requires that
the structure have the adequate lot width, lot area, and setbacks as if it were setting
on its own separate tract so that in the future it can be accommodated by its own lot.
In this situation it is a matter of the shape of the tract itself. This is a very large
tract of property containing around 20 acres with the two pieces combined. It is
commonly owned two adjacent tracts of land and it is situated in a manner that the
narrowest point of the property is the part that adjoins 54th Street, which provides
the lot width. With regard to special conditions, I mentioned that the applicant does
own two large tracts of land totaling about 20 acres and uses that property for
agricultural purposes. A lot line adjustment is being proposed so that two lots can
be better configured for two single-family homes. One basically just containing the
home and the other containing acreage plus the new structure. The R -A designation
is appropriate because the property is used for residential and agricultural purposes
and staff didn't feel the need to rezone the property just as a matter of providing the
necessary frontage because in this situation if the property is ever developed further
in the future then there will be a rezoning and most likely platting of lots and
infrastructure development whereas, the structures can be provided with their own
lots in the future upon redevelopment of the 20 acres. Basically, I think that covers
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 3
what staff's findings are. Staff is making a recommendation in favor of the
requested 22.15' lot width variance with the following condition: At the time of
development of more than one additional single-family home on the subject
property infrastructure shall be installed to provide adequate lot with for all
structures in accordance with current zoning regulations. That is all I have.
Green: Ok, would the applicant like to address us?
Jorgensen: Sure, as Dawn mentioned, this is a request for 22.15' variance and it is true that the
owner would like to have the second residence. She definitely did not want to
rezone the property so that is the reason for the request.
Green: Your name for the record.
Jorgensen: Dave Jorgensen.
Green: Are there any questions for the applicant or staff?
Nickle: Two houses on 20 acres is not high density.
Warrick: No, two houses even under the Residential Agricultural designation is very low
density.
Green: Are there any comments? 1 would entertain a motion.
Nickle: I would move that we approve the applicant's request with staff's comments
included.
Kohler: Second.
Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested along with
staff's recommendations. Is there any further discussion here or in the audience?
Shall the motion pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-22.00 was
approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Green: The variance passes. Thank you.
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 4
VAR 03-23.00: Variance (Mertins, pp 521) was submitted by Bret Park Company, Inc. on behalf
of William and Allyson Mertins for property located at 24 S. Hartman Avenue. The property is
zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 0.344 acres.
The requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The request is for a 17' rear setback (a 3' variance) to
accommodate a roof overhang on a new addition. The requirement is for an 8' side setback. The
request is for a 5'side setback (a 3' variance) to accommodate an existing roof overhang,
discovered in the new survey.
Green:
The next item on the agenda is VAR 03-23.00 submitted by Bret Park Company,
Inc. on behalf of William and Allyson Mertins. This request is for setback
variances. The request is for a 5' side setback, which would be a 3' variance.
Dawn, could you give us the background?
Warrick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located in the University Heights neighborhood
west of Razorback Road. It is just south of Center Street at 24 S. Hartman Avenue.
There is currently one single-family home on the property which contains 1,839
sq.ft. Surrounding properties contain single-family homes. Some are located on
combined lots. However, most adjoining lots are of a size which is compatible with
the subject property. The existing structure is located towards the rear, which is the
east of the property, due to the slope on the front portion of the lot. The applicant is
proposing to add a 922 sq.ft. addition to the rear of the existing structure. The
request is for a variance first to accommodate the existing roof overhang, which
was found in a recent survey to encroach the required side setback on the north and
then also to provide a variance for the rear, the addition to allow for a similar roof
overhang on the proposed addition. In order to provide architectural detailing,
which is consistent with the existing structure. The side setback on the north to
accommodate the existing roof overhang is a 3' variance to provide for a 5' setback
requirement. At the rear, which requires a 20' setback, a 17' setback is proposed,
which is a 3' variance also. With regard to findings, staff found that the structure,
which predates current zoning regulations and the sloping topography on the west
side of the subject property are special conditions which are specific to the subject
property and which affect the location of the addition that is being proposed. Also,
I found that literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would not permit the
proposed addition on an existing non -conforming structure. The proposed addition
is greater than 25% of the existing square footage. With regard to resulting actions,
the requested side setback variance is not the result of actions from the applicant.
The requested rear setback variance does result from actions of the applicant in that
they are proposing an addition to the structure. The request is mitigated to some
degree because of the sloping topography and the siting of the existing structure and
the desire for the architectural detailing and size of the roof overhang to be
consistent. Those are the primary findings that are pertinent to the case. Staff, with
those findings and with one condition, is recommending in favor of the request.
The condition is stated on page one of the report. Variances shall apply only to the
existing structure and the addition proposed with the site plan submitted for this
request. Future additions or alterations shall comply with setback requirements for
the zoning district in which the property is located. I did make a caveat to that that
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 5
this does not preclude future variance requests if appropriate findings can be made
by the Board of Adjustment. With that condition staff recommends in favor of the
request and we do have signed conditions by the applicant.
Green: Ok, very good. Would the applicant like to address us?
Mertins: Yes, my name is William Mertins and unless you have any questions I think
everything has already been stated.
Green: Ok.
Mertins: I will be happy to answer any specific questions that you have.
Green: Ok.
Kohler: I have a quick question. I understand the need for the north setback because of
existing conditions. 922 sq.ft. is not a small addition and you don't include a floor
plan, why couldn't the square footage on the rear or on the east side, be adjusted to
stay within the setbacks and have the same roof overhang for architectural
detailing?
Warrick: There is a floor plan, it was not easily reducible but I will pass it around.
Kohler: I was just curious if there was something unique in the floor plan that made it be
this size rather than staying within the setback.
Mertins: My name is William Mertins, I am the applicant for the record. The architects
developed this plan back from an old survey of what we thought was our property
line. The size of the addition was developed to suit our family's needs. We are
having another child and we did need this additional space for bedroom, bathroom,
closet and storage space. Also for a laundry room and additional closet. The plan
for the house was developed back before we realized where the actual property line
was. We could build, as a matter of right, we could build this addition as it is where
it is located but it wouldn't have the side setback and it wouldn't allow us to do the
roof overhang and also it would require that the roof be sided a different direction,
which would then present a taller structure to the neighbors to the east instead of the
sloping structure. I guess to answer your question the size of the addition is the size
it needed to be and the request for the variance was based on the fact that we
wanted to make this look nice and also not to have a large towering gable looming
over our neighbor's property. I don't know if that addresses your questions at all.
Nickle: It looks like just the overhang is going to be encroaching, is that correct?
Mertins: That is correct. It is going to be encroaching by roughly 2 1/z' and it is just the roof
overhang which on that side of the property, due to the slope of the land is probably
going to be about 15' or 16', maybe possibly 17' above the ground.
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 6
Kohler: If it went back further it would be a little higher?
Mertins: If the variance request were denied it would be taller than that. The roof itself
instead of sloping toward the eastern property line we are requesting the variance
for what would actually be a pitched gable that would be an addition.
Kohler: You could still do the same roof configuration if you just pulled it in right?
Mertins: It would be the same roof configuration but it would be turned sideways so that the
gabled end would be facing the rear property line and that would be an additional 6'
or 7' taller facing the neighbor's property. One of the architects is here that might
be able to answer your questions better than I can as well.
Park:
My name is Brett Park. The condition that William is talking about, the roof is a
compound structure. It has both a hipped portion and a gabled portion and that is
the existing architectural feature on the existing house. In order to accommodate
the client's functional requirements within the volume of the house we need this
amount of floor space in order to conform to the existing setback condition, we
would need to rotate the ridge of the roof, instead of going a north and south
direction which slopes down lower to the back property, to the east property we
would need to rotate that ridge line in an orientation that runs east and west, which
presents a taller gable profile to the east property and presents a greater, we felt like
it was more sensitive to take this approach to their neighbor to the east because they
will be looking up at a diminishing slope to the west away from their backyard
rather than having a large gable looming out toward. I say looming lightly, it is not
like I feel it is a towering thing that is going to fall over onto the neighbors.
Kohler: It is still possible to do this roof configuration, you just change the slope a little bit
and you move this wall in.
Park: By moving the wall in we need the accommodation for the space of the house.
Kohler: That is the answer. It is not the roof. That can stay in the general same. The
answer is your square footage program would change and you don't want to do that.
That is a valid reason. I just want to make it clear that there is nothing unique about
the floor plan that would also enable it to fit within the setback requirements.
Park:
The only thing that is unique about the floor plan is that the client has presented to
us furniture sizes and requirements that are specific to their needs and their use and
we have tried to accommodate those things. I don't think we have done it
extravagantly, I think it is a reasonable size.
Nickle: I think architecturally it would look better to have the gables as they are on the
existing, the same gable alignment as the existing house. I think that makes for a
more attractive overall look on the property.
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 7
Kohler: That would remain the same. It is still possible to keep that even though this wall
moves in.
Nickle: I don't have a problem with that because the actual wall and structure itself is
within the normal setback. It is the overhangs of the roof that is causing the
problem.
Park:
If it is of any consequence and consideration, we were working with an old survey
that was incorrect to begin with so this is sort of a series of discoveries as the
process has unfolded.
Kohler: Do you know what just the dimension of the bedroom is?
Park: I don't know the answer to that.
Kohler: It is a determining factor that it is 3' less.
Park: Oh yeah, definitely. It would be a matter of the bed and two night tables
encroaching on the circulation into the closet space.
Green:
Park:
One other point is that aren't both of these elements the same width so that with the
same pitched roof you would end up with the same height as it is this way and if
you reduce that one you are either going to have a lower ridge height there or you
are going to have to change the pitch.
It is a consideration for sure. It is part of it. That is not to say it is the sole
determinant but it is certainly part of the consideration. Are there any other
questions for me?
Green: Does anyone else have questions?
Nickle: Dawn, did I hear you say that it is within the square footage maximum building for
this lot size? Which we don't have a lot survey in our packet but was that correct?
Did hear you say that?
Warrick: There is not a maximum on this. Were you talking about the 25% that I mentioned?
Nickle: Yes.
Warrick: It is larger than 25% which is why the variance would be necessary. For a non-
conforming structure a single-family owner occupied non -conforming structure, an
owner may add up to 25% without the necessity for a variance. They have the
ability to make a 25% addition as long as that addition meets the setback
requirement in the RSF-4, formally R-1 zoning district so that is why I make note of
the 25%. This is greater than that.
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 8
Nickle: So we don't have to include that in the motion?
Warrick: No, unless you feel that this variance is not necessary and then we will deal with
that.
Green: Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address us on this issue? Are
there any questions or comments from the board?
Nickle: Are there any comments from the neighbors?
Warrick: I have not heard from anyone.
MOTION:
Kunzelmann: I move that we approve the variance as requested with staff recommendations.
Olszewski: I will second it.
Green:
We have a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested with staff
recommendations. Is there any further discussion from the board or audience?
Shall the motion pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-23.00 was
approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
Green: Thank you.
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 9
VAR 03-24.00: Variance (Callaway, pp 446) was submitted by Dwight Callaway for property
located at 835 Fritz Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per
acre and contains approximately 0.186 acres. The requirement is for 25' front setback. The request
is for a 20' front setback (a 5' variance) to allow for an addition to the existing structure.
Green:
The next item on our agenda is VAR 03-24.00 submitted by Dwight Callaway for
property on Fritz Drive. This is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, four units
per acre. The request is for a 1'9" setback variance on the front and to
accommodate an existing structure and for a 20' front setback, which is a 5'
variance on the east to allow for this new addition. Would you like to give the
report Dawn?
Warrick: Sure. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Fritz Drive and
Fritz Court. It is north of Prospect Street between Willow and Ruth Drive. It is
south and east of Cleburn. The property contains a small 957 sq.ft. single-family
home. It is on a corner lot with a very steep site which slopes from the north to the
south. Several large, mature trees are also existing on the site. The applicant is
proposing to construct a 1,084 sq.ft. addition to the existing home on two levels
which will make use of the sloping elevation of the site. The request is to
accommodate the existing structure with a 1'9" front setback variance on the north
and to allow a 20' setback, which is a 5' variance along the east boundary of the lot.
Both of those north and east boundaries are fronts because of the configuration of
this lot located at the corner of Fritz and Fritz. With regard to findings, special
conditions which are peculiar to the subject property and project include the
existing structure, which is non -conforming and predates current zoning
regulations, the corner lot condition of the property, which imposes large setbacks
for the two fronts adjacent to streets and the sloping topography of the site. Literal
interpretation of the zoning regulations would not allow the proposed addition and
would create a very difficult situation for further developing the property. The
slope make the relation of entrances, driveways and access to each level of the
structure with regard to the grade of the site. That is pretty critical as to how
various areas of the structure are accessed and how the applicant is proposing to
utilize the slope to provide different living areas. Those are probably the most
critical findings. In addition to that, with regard to harmony and the general
purpose, the proposed front setback variance on the north is a minimum variance
necessary to accommodate the existing structure, which as I mentioned, predates
current zoning regulations. The proposed front setback variance on the east is the
minimum variance necessary to allow the proposed addition. The existing home
with the proposed addition is in harmony with the surrounding properties and is
consistent with the purpose and intent of current zoning regulations. Surrounding
properties are typically much larger than this particular single-family home. There
is a newer subdivision that is developed to the east of this property. The applicant
did provide some photographs that are in your packet that kind of demonstrate the
existing condition of the structure on page 3.10 shows the site and some of the trees
and the corner condition and then on the opposite page there is an example of
surrounding properties so that you can kind of see the context of where this
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 10
structure is and what the surrounding single-family homes look like. It is also
probably appropriate to take a look at that close up view map on page 3.12 and you
can see on that that lot size is in this case actually pretty adequate. This is not an
extremely small sized lot although there are other lots in the general area that are
larger. The house that is on this lot is very small and especially compared to other
surrounding structures. With that, there is also a written description in the packet.
Staff is recommending in favor of the requested variances with one condition which
states that the variances shall apply only to the existing structure and the proposed
addition. Future additions or alterations shall comply with setback requirements for
the zoning district and also the caveat that it would not preclude future variance
requests if findings can be made by the Board of Adjustment. I do have signed
conditions of approval by this applicant on file.
Green: Ok, thank you. Is the applicant here?
Callaway: My name is Dwight Callaway, I'm the applicant and the owner. I will just answer
any questions you have.
Green: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Callaway?
Nickle: It looks like it will be a big improvement to the neighborhood and it is very nicely
done.
Kohler: I went over there and looked at this and I think it is great what you're doing with
the exception of impacting some of the mature trees it doesn't hurt the
neighborhood. My only question is why is being on a corner lot a special
condition? There are other corner lots in the district and why just by the fact that it
is a corner lot should consideration be given for things like setbacks? I know there
is a sloping situation.
Warrick: That is just it. I don't believe that being on a corner lot should be the sole
consideration for a variance because corner lots are platted everyday and they are
buildable lots. That is why there are other mitigating circumstances.
Kohler: Why is it part of the criteria of it if there are other corner lots?
Warrick: I just felt that it was appropriate to define the lot and to provide some sort of
context of where this project was sited.
Nickle: I think the key thing in my mind at least, is the fact that we are dealing with an
existing structure here that predates the regulations. In order to expand the house to
go back doesn't make a lot of sense straight back and to me that is part of the
special conditions. Yes it is on a corner lot, etc. but to me it is the fact that it
predates the situation and to make a decent looking project expansion that kind of
blends in with the concept. The chances of the basic reasoning behind corner lot
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 11
setbacks is for potential road expansion in the future and I don't see that happening
here on this corner. It has been there a long time.
Kohler: I think there are some reasons to be favorable on this it is just that the fact that it is a
corner lot to me wasn't one of them as far as why we should approve an exception
to the zoning ordinance. When you buy corner lots with them come known
restrictions. That was just a little bit of a question I had.
Green:
To me the added restriction that a corner lot provides is that you essentially have
two front setbacks instead of only an 8' side setback which reduces the area on a
corner lot that is buildable. There are other advantages for building on a corner lot
too.
Nickle: An 8' setback on the rear of the lot that slopes like this doesn't do you a heck of a
lot of good because nobody is going to build a structure that takes advantage of the
relief given by the second side setback being the rear. To me that is again, it speaks
to the slope of the lot, which is the major consideration.
Green:
Becker:
Point well taken. Are there any other questions or comments? Is there anyone in
the audience that would like to have a comment on this issue?
Denny Becker, just to reiterate what you said Mike, given the fact that this is an
older subdivision a lot of time the grid iron concept was laid out to sell lots. There
was no consideration given to the comer lot which requires two front setbacks so
from a building standpoint you are reduced on your buildable area. That is why I
would support the comment that says that is a condition different from anywhere
else. I haven't seen the subdivision to see if they have enlarged the corner lots but
I've seen plenty of subdivisions and they don't enlarge the corner lots and therefore,
there is less buildable area.
Olszewski: They used to do that, do they still do that where they don't bother to make the
corner lots a little bigger? What you are saying is that basically they went through
and just kind of gridded them off, do people still do that?
Becker: If you get small lot divisions it makes a big difference so hopefully the developer
understands what is going on and the buildable portion is enough.
Kohler: That isn't unique to this site. Elsewhere in the district there are similar conditions.
I am sure across the street in all four corners.
Becker: In the historical district it is all over the place.
Kohler: Right, so those lots aren't any bigger so that doesn't make this unique.
Becker: No, but it makes it special. Corner lots are special conditions.
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 12
Green: Are there any further comments or questions or issues or motions?
MOTION:
Nickle: 1 move that we approve the request with staff comments and requirements.
Kunzelmann: Second.
Green:
There has been a motion and a second to approve the variance request along with
staff's recommendations. Is there any further comments from the Board or the
audience? Shall the motion pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-24.00 was
approved by a vote of 4-1 with Mr. Kohler voting no.
Thomas: The motion carries four to one.
Green: Thank you.
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 13
VAR 03-25.00: Variance (Massey, pp 363) was submitted by Brett Watts of Engineering Design
Associates on behalf of Mitchell Massey for property located at Wildwood Drive, Lot 6, Pine
Valley Subdivision Phase V. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units
per acre and contains approximately 1.90 acres. The requirement is for a 90' lot width. The
request is for a 65'62" lot width (a 24'38" variance).
Green:
The next item on our agenda is a variance request VAR 03-25.00 by Massey. I
understand that there is a need to table this in order to allow for additional
information from the Planning Commission.
Warrick: Staff is recommending that this item be tabled. We went ahead and kept it on your
agenda since it has been published and since it was apart of a project that is in the
works. The site is part of the Pine Valley Phase V subdivision and the applicant is
proposing a four plex. It is on a 1.9 acre site and therefore, requires Large Scale
Development approval. The Planning Commission heard this project at their July
28th meeting and at that time tabled it for additional information and until the Large
Scale is heard by the Planning Commission and any kinks worked out that may
come up at that level staff doesn't feel it is appropriate to take the Variance through
the Board of Adjustment process. We will bring it to you as soon as it is ready. It
is just not quite ready yet.
Olszewski: Dawn, is this correct that you are recommending that we table it until September
2"d that is not the right date is it?
Warrick: It is a Tuesday, the day after Labor Day. Monday is the Labor Day holiday. That is
the one meeting each year that we shift for Board of Adjustment because of the
holiday. We will meet on Tuesday instead.
Olszewski: I thought maybe we would meet the following week.
Warrick: I scheduled it for the 211d. That is our recommendation is to table this to your
September meeting.
Green: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this before we
entertain a motion to table because there won't be any discussion.
MOTION:
Olszewski: I motion that we table it.
Nickle: Second.
Green: There is a motion and a second to table, shall the motion pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table VAR 03-25.00 was approved
by a vote of 5-0-0.
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 14
Green: That item is tabled until at least the next meeting.
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 15
VAR 03-26.00: Variance (Pierce, pp 405) was submitted by Collier Pierce for property located
at 1385 N. Oakland Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units
per acre and contains approximately 0.3357 acres. The required lot width is 90'. The request is
for 75' lot width (a 15' variance).
Green:
The last item on our regular Board of Adjustment agenda is VAR 03-26.00
submitted by Collier Pierce for property on Oakland Avenue. This is a request for a
reduction in lot width requirements for a 15' variance.
Warrick: The subject property is located at 1385 Oakland Avenue. The site is relatively flat.
It is similar in size to surrounding lots. Many lots in this area have been combined
to create larger development tracts for apaitments. This is in the multi -family
zoning district. This lot, however, is a stand alone lot without commonly owned
property adjacent to it. The site contains a total area of 15,000 sq.ft. It meets all
size requirements for a lot containing more than three dwelling units within the
RMF -24 zoning district with the exception of the lot width. Surrounding properties
contain primarily multi -family residences. They are also located within this multi-
family residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing
structure and to construct an apartment development containing eight two bedroom
units with 16 parking spaces. Staff did require that the applicant provide a site plan
that demonstrates that this development could be constructed on the site in
compliance with all development regulations prior to submitting a request for this
lot width variance. What the request consists of is a variance of 15' to allow the
development of more than three dwelling units on the subject property. The
property does have 75' of existing lot width. For three units the requirement is 90'.
The maximum density with its existing 75' lot width is a duplex. With regard to
special conditions and findings, the subject property is owned as an individual lot
without adjacent property under common ownership. The development of this
property with a duplex would not be consistent with the density of other
developments in the area which is zoned for Multi -family residential uses. The lot
was created prior to adoption of current zoning regulations. While the lot can be
developed with 75' of lot width it is, as I mentioned, not consistent with adjacent
developments and all other lot requirements with regard to setbacks and lot area can
be satisfied for the proposed eight unit development. Therefore, I felt that it would
be consistent with a few conditions to recommend in favor of this lot width
variance. The conditions stated on page one of your report are that the proposed
development shall comply with all development regulations, including but not
limited to, tree preservation, grading, drainage, storm water detention, parking,
landscaping, sidewalks and impact fees. 2) No more than eight dwelling units shall
be constructed on the site. 3) Adequate facilities for solid waste disposal which
meet the requirements of the Solid Waste and Recycling Division shall be provided.
With those conditions staff is recommending in favor of the request and the
applicant has signed conditions of approval and those are on file.
Green: Ok, would the applicant like to address us?
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 16
Pierce: My name is Collier Pierce, I am with Pierce Properties and I am in the student
rental business mostly and am trying to develop this property and trying to get the
variance.
Green: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Pierce?
Nickle: I don't see a sidewalk but I assume you plan on having a sidewalk.
Pierce: Yes Sir.
Nickle: Probably where you've got these trees drawn.
Pierce: No Sir, I've learned my lesson.
Warrick: The trees will be required too. We will work with Mr. Pierce to make it al fit.
There will be a requirement for trees along the front property line as well as a row
of shrubs to mitigate the impact of the parking lot adjacent to the street right of
way.
Becker: I would just chime in with evne with the 75' width the greenspace side area is 8 '/2'
and the requirement is only 5' and we have provided more parking than necessary
and still have planted trees much more frequent than the code requires. The point
that this is zoned RMF -24, you really can't develop it with a 24 unit multiple family
unit so what is happening there, the attempt is to say let's develop this in a like
manner with the other properties in the area.
Green: The adjacent developments next to it are much more dense I guess?
Becker: There are lots of rental properties up and down that street. I have got some right at
the end of that street. There are some more being built at the other end.
Kohler: Where is the addiitonal parking you are talking about in excess of what is required?
Pierce: Actually, this is really eight one bedroom units and there are 16 parking places. It
is miscalled as two bedrooms.
Warrick: The requirement is one per bedroom.
Olszewski: Isn't the side setback supposed to be 8'?
Warrick: For parking it is 5'.
Olszewski: The building itself is going to be 8' and that is what is required.
Nickle: They have got about twice as much parking as what's required by ordinance. Is that
right?
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 2003
Page 17
Pierce: We've got plenty of room for extra greenspace. If you look at any of my stuff I put
trees everywhere I can get them.
Kohler: Just out of curiosity, why are you putting the additional parking if it is not required
and not using more greenspace?
Pierce: I put all the parking I can get in a complex because that is the biggest problem is
parking up by the campus.
Nickle: Married couples often have two cars.
Pierce: Being guard control is pretty tough.
Whitaker: I can tell you from personal experience in that neighborhood during my school days
is it keeps the entire street from being parked over. That basically happens when
you don't have any parking.
Becker: That particular street doesn't allow for any on street parking so anybody visiting
must leave the street and get on the property so that is a requirement for more
parking than code requires.
Green: It looks like a good solution. Are there any other comments or questions? Does
anyone in the audience want to address us on this item?
MOTION:
Kunzelmann: I move that we approve the Variance as requested with staff recommendations.
Nickle: Second.
Green:
We have a motion and a second to approve the variance request along with staff's
recommendations. Is there any other discussion from the Board or the audience?
Shall the motion pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-26.00 was
approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
Green: Thank you. If there is no other business for the Board of Adjustment we will
adjourn the Board of Adjustment meeting.